Subjective, personal morality?

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I think the root of the problem stems partly from the thought that all belief systems and religions have common threads in them. This means man thought them up. Not believing in God but believing the Church is the best or most practical belief system out there is like saying, “I don’t believe in God but this Catholic Church idea is the best package for me.” This suggests the Church just sprung into existence through the work of some men, and Jesus, what about Him?

Finally, intellectual discussions, while helpful, are just part of it. You need to add prayer, and patience, so that a turning to God may occur. Fortunately, by being married, your unbelieving husband shares something with you.

Ed

Thank you for your comment Ed.

My husband has a very poor knowledge of Christianity. He didn’t have a clue that there are independent historical writings that confirm that Jesus existed and that he was indeed killed because of a dispute with the Jewish leaders. He expressed his doubt about the authenticity of such sources and I replied that there are less sources about other historical figures whose existence is accepted to be true, based on a number of criteria that historians use.

My husband thinks that ‘some people’ made it all up for their personal gain. I guess ii never occurred to him that the Apostles were martyred and that many, many people in the first centuries lost their lives for their faith. Hardly a religion that will pay off in some worldly sense. He also thinks that Christianity is just like all other religions in what is says about God and our relationship to Him. I tried to explain why it is radically different but he was not interested in listening. I think there are reasons for him to reject information of this type. Maybe it is not the time to dig there. I pray for him every day, that God’s will be done: for His glory and not mine, and for my husband’s salvation and not my own sense of victory. It is hard sometimes but it is what it is. If you could say a prayer for this intention I will be grateful.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi, I guess I would ask for clarification.

He said that he thinks that Christian morality is superior to all other systems out there, and that he is very happy to be a product of the western world, which itself is a product of Christianity. But he sees Christianity as only another human ideology that happens to be better than others.

So, what does he mean by saying that Christian morality is “superior” or “better”? Does he mean: “I like it more” or “It helps us survive more”? You really need to have an objective standard of good and evil to be able to confidently say that some moral action is system is “superior” or “better”. To say that Pianist A plays Fur Elise better than Pianist B, one needs to know the objective standard (e.g. sheet music) of the piece, or else how can you justifiably judge between them?

If he is saying, one moral system is superior because he likes it more, well, so what? If the Nazis liked their moral system better, what’s wrong with that, since it is all personal or cultural preference?

If he is saying, one moral system is superior because it helps us survive (evolutionary value), again, so what? Why should survival of the species be the arbitrating moral ground? This could only be the case if it was objectively true that survival of the species is a standard by which to judge morality, but if such objectivity is not admitted, from where do we start?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Hi, I guess I would ask for clarification.

So, what does he mean by saying that Christian morality is “superior” or “better”? Does he mean: “I like it more” or “It helps us survive more”? You really need to have an objective standard of good and evil to be able to confidently say that some moral action is system is “superior” or “better”.

He thinks it is better than others because it is more humane, it protects the weak, it respects human beings regardless of sex, social class, age and other differences, it allows space for development. So it could be said that he likes it better because it helps us survive more, and live better. My question to him was why couldn’t something that was better be considered to probably be true.

No idea how to proceed. I’d like to gently probe into his belief system a bit more and point to a few holes.

 

[jonathan_hili]

He thinks it is better than others because it is more humane, it protects the weak, it respects human beings regardless of sex, social class, age and other differences, it allows space for development. So it could be said that he likes it better because it helps us survive more, and live better. My question to him was why couldn’t something that was better be considered to probably be true.

No idea how to proceed. I’d like to gently probe into his belief system a bit more and point to a few holes.

I still think he’s not connecting all the dots.

Okay, it’s better because it’s more humane, protects the weak, etc. But what standard makes this “better”? Why can’t some argue and believe that a moral system that is inhumane, oppresses the weak, etc. is superior? What would make them wrong, and you right?

If he insists on the survival point - ask him why survival is the arbiter of morality. Why not pleasure, or personal satisfaction, or even personal gain and survival? These things make just as much sense.

Get him to come on this forum and chat with us!

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I still think he’s not connecting all the dots.

If he insists on the survival point - ask him why survival is the arbiter of morality. Why not pleasure, or personal satisfaction, or even personal gain and survival?

I agree that he is not connecting the dots.

I don’t think he was insisting on survival as the main criteria, but was more stressing the quality of life in a variety of ways. In the end we were both talking about the same thing: the natural law, except he doesn’t call it that. Recognising that there is a need for morality that we feel within us is a good point to meet and discuss the whys and hows. I think that many atheists who think about morality struggle to find the connection between the moral law and the individual. This is where Jesus comes in of course, but that is a big hurdle to jump.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I agree that he is not connecting the dots.

I don’t think he was insisting on survival as the main criteria, but was more stressing the quality of life in a variety of ways. In the end we were both talking about the same thing: the natural law, except he doesn’t call it that. Recognising that there is a need for morality that we feel within us is a good point to meet and discuss the whys and hows. I think that many atheists who think about morality struggle to find the connection between the moral law and the individual. This is where Jesus comes in of course, but that is a big hurdle to jump.

Absolutely, and I commend him on his honesty - and you’re lucky to have a husband who thinks like that.

However, I still think we have a problem.

Let’s grant there’s a natural moral law and we feel it and know its force on our conscience and reason. Okay, but why are we obliged to it? Is it because we would not have as good a quality of life if we disobeyed it, i.e. if we were nasty, selfish, violent, and so on, in general our quality of life will be poorer than if we are good to others? That might very well be true. But (i) it’s only generally true and any individual can disagree (a successful thief or philanderer will definitely do so!) and we have no justification to say they are wrong because (ii) there is no objective obligation upon us. Unless someone wants to say we were made (i.e. teleologically) for the moral law, that’s fine, but how can an impersonal universe make us for a moral law?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

But (i) it’s only generally true and any individual can disagree (a successful thief or philanderer will definitely do so!) and we have no justification to say they are wrong because (ii) there is no objective obligation upon us. Unless someone wants to say we were made (i.e. teleologically) for the moral law, that’s fine, but how can an impersonal universe make us for a moral law?

He said that morality is just like consciousness. It is something that exists within us and is a result of our biological body. So, the brain - consciousness connection. I really don’t understand what that means and couldn’t get a clarification about how morality fits into this. Any ideas on how this could be interpreted? (I don’t want to go back to this topic with the hub yet, because our previous conversation ended with him getting upset and telling me that I will not plug the holes in his belief system with my religion. At least he admits there are holes )

From what I have gathered of people who believe in subjective morality, they believe they are responsible to themselves, and that other people benefit from that. I guess that explains the sense of obligation they feel.

 

[josh987654321]

Yesterday I had a discussion

Any thoughts on how to proceed and what to ask next?

TIA!

Hi Contra Mundum

Here are some great quotes on the existence of God - proofthatgodexists.org/favourite-quotes.php

Also if you go to youtube and type in “Ravi Zacharias Atheism” you will find some very good arguments from him.

*This is my argument for the existence of God, one which I think your saying you have already tried, but I would stick to the morality argument of good and evil, because God’s moral truths are written on all our minds and hearts and as C.S. Lewis say’s, how can you call a line crooked unless you have some idea of what a straight line is?

If there is no God, than there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver, than there is no moral law and without moral law, there is nothing to distinguish between good and evil or right and wrong, thus without God, there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong, it’s all just subjective opinion.

I think after seeing the horrors that mankind is capable of, I can certainly say that there is evil, I can certainly say that the holocaust and death camps of WW2, the persecution and dehumanization of the Jew’s was evil, however without God, that was just a form of morals that were not good or evil (right or wrong) it just didn’t work and there was nothing evil or wrong about it and id be surprised if anyone thought that.*

Here is another story that you might like -

*Does God exist?

A man went to a barber shop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects.

When they eventually touched on the subject of a God, the barber said:
“I don’t believe that God exists.”

Why do you say that?" asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who allow all of there things”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he did not want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with dirty long hair and an untrimmed beard.

The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the barber. “I am here, and I am a barber, and I just worked on you”

“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.”

“Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”

“Exactly!” - affirmed the customer “That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist!
what happens, is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him, That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.” *

Here is a good quote you might like -

*An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” It’s white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?

The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. Ravi Zacharias.*

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Here is another good quote -

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?.. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. C.S. Lewis

Here is another good one -

*The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?” A student answered bravely, “Yes, he did”.

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn’t respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had “proved” that “belief in God” was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " “Of course” answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : “Professor does Cold exists?”

The professor answered, “What kind of question is that? …Of course the cold exists… haven’t you ever been cold?”

The young student answered, “In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don’t have body heat or we are not hot.”

“And, does Dark exist?”, he continued. The professor answered “Of course”. This time the student responded, “Again you’re wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there’s lack of light.”

Finally, the student asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?” The professor replied, “Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil.”

The student responded, “Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God’s presence in the hearts of man.”

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn’t answer back.

The young man’s name was Albert Einstein. *

I would also encourage your husband to read the Gospels if he has not done so already, because there are many, many moral truths that are revealed to us through the teachings of Christ. In short, the Gospels hits us hard.

Note: when you find an argument that “clicks” or “works” I would be very interested in hearing it, because I want to try and find a way of explaining the truth in a way that works or clicks for people like “ThinkingSapien” . Also I strongly recommend the arguments used by “Ravi Zacharias” he is very good when talking about Atheism. youtube.com/watch?v=EonZXFd0Afw

I hope some of this has helped you.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Josh,

thank you for the quotes and the links. I will check them out.

I’ve no idea what kind of an argument makes someone click. I doubt that arguments convert people, at least not most of them. Random things do, they trigger a response from deep inside the soul. I think my husband doesn’t want my religion to be true so he is resisting it although he agrees with so many things. It must be hard for a secular man to realise he has much in common with the weirdos that we are.

 

[josh987654321]

Josh,

thank you for the quotes and the links. I will check them out.

I’ve no idea what kind of an argument makes someone click. I doubt that arguments convert people, at least not most of them. Random things do, they trigger a response from deep inside the soul. I think my husband doesn’t want my religion to be true so he is resisting it although he agrees with so many things. It must be hard for a secular man to realise he has much in common with the weirdos that we are.

haha

Yea, I’m not sure either, Ravi Zacharias is very good at talking to atheists, I enjoy watching his youtube clips, for me it was many moral truths written on my heart and mind, quite simply, it just makes sense and the more understanding and knowing of Christ I have, the more and more sense everything else makes, exactly like C.S. Lewis said, I don’t believe in the sun because I can see it, but because by it, I can see everything else.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

For me it was many moral truths written on my heart and mind, quite simply, it just makes sense and the more understanding and knowing of Christ I have, the more and more sense everything else makes, exactly like C.S. Lewis said,** I don’t believe in the sun because I can see it, but because by it, I can see everything else**.

And here is reason # 346,684,93375 for finally reading C.S. Lewis. What a beautiful way to put it.

 

[grannymh]

Morality is based on this objective, universal principle or truth ----
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Morwenna]

Don’t you think anyone had morals thousands of years ago? How else did we survive to get to this day? People, and that includes pagans and primitive tribes, knew that to kill and steal was wrong…and that to work together with your group in harmony was good. People knew this instinctively, and thoughtfully, **before organized religion or any kind of “God” came onto the scene. **

When do you believe “any kind of God” came onto the scene?

 

[josh987654321]

I agree with your husband. Of course morality can exist without believing in a God.

You say that, yet how do you distinguish between good and evil or right and wrong?

Don’t you think anyone had morals thousands of years ago? How else did we survive to get to this day? People, and that includes pagans and primitive tribes, knew that to kill and steal was wrong…and that to work together with your group in harmony was good.

Why is killing and stealing wrong?

People knew this instinctively, and thoughtfully, before organized religion or any kind of “God” came onto the scene.

What point throughout history was God not in the “scene”?

If morality only existed externally…how would a person ever trust themselves? Trust their own instincts and gut and decisions?

Because of our conscience, something given to us by God, we can either allow it to flourish or suppress it.

Morality isn’t something you look up in a cookbook to find a recipe on how to do it.

What is morality? and if it’s not external and objective, than how do you explain evil and wrong? how can you call a line crooked unless you have some idea of what a straight line is? God is that straight line, if there is no God, than there is no line to compare in order to call this or that one crooked, thus there is no morality without God.

I know many atheists who are the most moral people I’ve ever met…more moral than the God-believing people I know. Because the atheists have their morals from a strong internal belief and knowing,

What belief and knowing? are you serious? Atheism by it’s very definition is void of any belief or knowing.

while many of the churchgoers i know are following rules given to them–but the fact that they are external makes them feel disconnected and foreign…not something that is part of themselves.

? May I ask, do you believe in God? and why or why not?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I know many atheists who are the most moral people I’ve ever met…more moral than the God-believing people I know. Because the atheists have their morals from a strong internal belief and knowing, while many of the churchgoers i know are following rules given to them–but the fact that they are external makes them feel disconnected and foreign…not something that is part of themselves.

Interesting how: a) you have a standard for recognising that something is moral, while at the same time rejecting the idea of objectivity, and b) you have such insight into the souls of churchgoers and feel competent to analyse their attitudes and feelings regarding morality. Preach it sistah

 

[jonathan_hili]

He said that morality is just like consciousness. It is something that exists within us and is a result of our biological body. So, the brain - consciousness connection. I really don’t understand what that means and couldn’t get a clarification about how morality fits into this. Any ideas on how this could be interpreted? (I don’t want to go back to this topic with the hub yet, because our previous conversation ended with him getting upset and telling me that I will not plug the holes in his belief system with my religion. At least he admits there are holes )

From what I have gathered of people who believe in subjective morality, they believe they are responsible to themselves, and that other people benefit from that. I guess that explains the sense of obligation they feel.

Well, I guess I can understand that he would get upset, Contra Mundum, as it’s difficult to reconcile such a position with an objective or obligatory morality, but I will definitely give him kudos for his honesty and decency.

I guess he might argue that morality is an aspect of the mind, an epiphenomenon of the brain, and so is “objective” just as the mind is “objective”, that is, it really exists and is not something we make up because it has evolved along with us, and presumably, from this, to better our survival as a species. But even if this is granted - which I find hard to concede in the first place - it still makes morality (i) ultimately subjective (in the same way consciousness or mental thoughts are) and (ii) not obligatory. We have evolved with instincts too, some we’d consider good and others bad. But I have no obligation to follow any particular instinct, let’s say, to take food forcibly from someone, and wouldn’t feel guilty if I disobeyed it. Why should morality be any different?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi DaddyGirl, I think you’re making the typical confusion in not distinguishing between epistemology and ontology in morality, when you say:

I agree with your husband. Of course morality can exist without believing in a God. Don’t you think anyone had morals thousands of years ago? How else did we survive to get to this day? People, and that includes pagans and primitive tribes, knew that to kill and steal was wrong…and that to work together with your group in harmony was good.
People knew this instinctively, and thoughtfully, before organized religion or any kind of “God” came onto the scene.

Obviously, people can know morality without God - or an ultimately objective source - but can there actually be morality (of a defensible, justifiable kind) without God - or an ultimately objective source? That’s the real question.

For instance, I can know that water is wet, but unless I had reliable senses and other points of confirmation which were in a sense objective, how could I defend the belief that water is actually wet? Which goes on to your next point…

If morality only existed externally…how would a person ever trust themselves? Trust their own instincts and gut and decisions?
Morality isn’t something you look up in a cookbook to find a recipe on how to do it.

Easily. In the same way we trust out mathematical equations. Morality is more about knowledge than it is about feeling. The idea that morality is feeling is actually wrong; moreover, the idea that morality is a kind of instinct. It’s true that you don’t look up morality in a cookbook or an external book of morals, but you do reason to morality and you do need morality to be objective, i.e. not just something personal to you which doesn’t have a reality outside of you.

I know many atheists who are the most moral people I’ve ever met…more moral than the God-believing people I know. Because the atheists have their morals from a strong internal belief and knowing, while many of the churchgoers i know are following rules given to them–but the fact that they are external makes them feel disconnected and foreign…not something that is part of themselves.

Of course. No one would deny that atheists can and are moral. Again, the problem isn’t about knowing morality, but the being of morality. Both atheists and churchgoers use the same ultimate source for morality, namely, natural law, which we reason to. Certainly, religion can aid us with morality. As Thomas Aquinas pointed out, even though God gave us natural law to know moral truths, people can be lazy, or ignorant, or stupid, or just too busy, to reach some of them without guidance, and so He gave us religion as an aid. In all honesty, I don’t see how “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not commit adultery” or “Love thy neighbour as thyself” or “Forgive thy brother seventy seven times (i.e. always)” are external or foreign to our human nature - they certainly don’t feel external or foreign to me. Catholic morality gels with natural human morality. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t follow it.

 

[grannymh]

Of course. No one would deny that atheists can and are moral. Again, the problem isn’t about knowing morality, but the being of morality. Both atheists and churchgoers use the same ultimate source for morality, namely, natural law, which we reason to. Certainly, religion can aid us with morality. As Thomas Aquinas pointed out, even though God gave us natural law to know moral truths, people can be lazy, or ignorant, or stupid, or just too busy, to reach some of them without guidance, and so He gave us religion as an aid. In all honesty, I don’t see how “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not commit adultery” or “Love thy neighbour as thyself” or “Forgive thy brother seventy seven times (i.e. always)” are external or foreign to our human nature - they certainly don’t feel external or foreign to me. Catholic morality gels with natural human morality. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t follow it.

Natural law? If that is based on the nature of the human person, then it follows that the basic objective truth is that all human persons are worthy of profound respect. (including those in the womb)

I would suspect that acting against “Thou shalt not kill” etc. is a tad disrespectful of the human person regardless of “Catholic morality” or non-Catholic morality.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I guess he might argue that morality is an aspect of the mind, an epiphenomenon of the brain, and so is “objective” just as the mind is “objective”, that is, it really exists and is not something we make up because it has evolved along with us, and presumably, from this, to better our survival as a species. But even if this is granted - which I find hard to concede in the first place - it still makes morality (i) ultimately subjective (in the same way consciousness or mental thoughts are) and (ii) not obligatory.

This sounds very much like what he was saying. Thanks.

How would you address the question in the underlined part of the sentence? Why would it not be like the mind? I think this is something I should ask him to clarify further.